coveralls
commented
2 years ago Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 0807aa9f-9805-4441-af24-8510c35dabac
- 24 of 34 (70.59%) changed or added relevant lines in 1 file are covered.
- No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
- Overall coverage increased (+0.07%) to 63.29%
| Changes Missing Coverage | Covered Lines | Changed/Added Lines | % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| client/client.go | 24 | 34 | 70.59% | ||
| <!-- | Total: | 24 | 34 | 70.59% | --> |
| Totals | |
|---|---|
| Change from base Build f63baef6-725d-44b8-8aa7-f180dc352d1a: | 0.07% |
| Covered Lines: | 12234 |
| Relevant Lines: | 19330 |
We have a variety of from-workflow errors that are relevant for users calling
client.ExecuteWorkflow(...).Get(...)andclient.GetWorkflow(...).Get(...).Since they do not share any common wrapper or "parent type" that would allow easy comparison with an error type check or
errors.As, they are rather annoying to differentiate from general RPC errors like timeouts or connection failures. Users need to check many types, and it is not generally possible for them to make that check future-proof.So this adds a top-level "check all relevant types" helper, which is intended to be a stable target for users to rely on, even if we add more types later. It intentionally does not tell which kind of error it is, in case there are multiple types in the wrapped chain, as then behavior would be order-dependent and any change risks breaking someone's code.